NightshineRecorralis

Gotcha - I was only doing that to lose altitude and speed safely while maintaining roughly the same distance from the KSC. S-turns are overrated! Didn't realize it was still technically a barrel roll while descending as I would've called it a corkscrew (and a poor one at that) but thanks for noticing!

The crewed EEV was done a little out of necessity as I have yet to set up a lunar comsat system on this save, but the EEV and base are both oversized for their rated crew capacity for extra comfort, plus he was well stocked with snacks! If you noticed the mission name the EEV was supposed to launch last with all the crew but since it was the heaviest component with the least mobility I thought it would be prudent to send it to the Mun first The staging broke when I attached it to the shuttle - it was perfectly fine in testing! Darn those engineers that assembled it. If you're referring the the aerobrake of STS-2 with the barrel roll that was the only mission of the 4 that I didn't refly due to the nosecone breaking and frankly I'm not sure how it didn't break. If that's not it I'm actually not sure when and where I did a barrel roll? This intrigues me.

@Mathrilord I find that with some practice I can fly a plane as well as with an autopilot once it's trimmed out properly, and with SSTs you kinda have to fly on trim anyway so that's not a big deal. If you were to submit an SST I can review it, no problem. I also have Pilot assistant installed for my giant planes and when the games runs at single digit FPS so I can use that as well, though it's a very rudimentary system and I consider it an add-on to SAS rather than a true autopilot.

So I found out that I'm less stupid than I made myself out to be and I actually made proper quicksaves. If any of the videos feel jarring in the middle that would be why. Same modlist as before, aka all utilities, visual, and with the DLC - this time the only DLC part I used is the very broken and OP Wolfhound engine for that sweet sweet vacuum ISP. Viscount III w/ DLC parts: https://kerbalx.com/NightshineRecorralis/Viscount-III Viscount III-M w/o DLC parts: https://kerbalx.com/NightshineRecorralis/Viscount-III-M Once again I believe all of these qualify as Commander but again if I need to fix anything let me know! Mun STS-1: Demo mission + Research lab Mun STS-2: Mun base part I - EEV Mun STS-3: Mun base part II - Hab Module Mun STS-4: Mun base part III - Rover & EEV Technically the shuttle's return and the EEV's return were conducted in tandem but I show the EEV at the end to minimize confusion. That's why the dates and the alarms might not make sense.

So perhaps I should rephrase - I originally intended to switch out the nosecone for a heatshield as I discovered this issue in test flights, but went with a nosecone for aEsThEtIcS and it's biting me in the rear now that I've flown all the Mun missions and realized that it probably wouldn't be allowed. Also, if I were to come in any higher I would not be able to aerocapture effectively... and with later payloads pushing the shuttle to its limits in terms of delta-v I think I'm looking at a complete redesign if I were to add more wing or airbrakes...possibly. I just think it's a shame that the nosecone that so nicely fits on the Mk.3 has such a 'low' temp tolerance. I might swap it for the shielded docking adapter or just a heatshield outright if this is an issue.

Hey @sturmhauke, how strict are you going to be with losing parts on reentry? One of the nosecones on my shuttle keeps overheating and it's frankly the only nosecone that looks good on the Mk.3 cockpit so I'd much rather keep it.

@sturmhauke So I just tried this with this thingy And guess what? Snapped at the same spot. Oh well, I think I'll just have to live with the fact that this fuel pod forced me to become a better pilot

My in the works Mun shuttle is designed with a much higher ground clearance, is smaller, has higher rated gear, and has more wing area - I'll be sure to test the fuel pod in that thing. I think my main issue with the Commodore is that it was designed primarily for large item lifting and not landing - but off camera I figured out that as long as I touch down with less than 1m/s of vertical speed it would survive, like, 90% of the time. In these cases it makes me believe that the problem is due to my design but not in the way you described. I can't quite figure out why, but something about a large lateral load just broke it on my save in particular. I say this because the breakage occurs at the same place between the tanks and not at the docking port, which traditionally is the weakest point. I almost wonder if the RCS tank's autostrut might have something to do with it but clearly I need to do more testing.

What I think is happening is that under a lateral load, the joint between the ore tank and the fuel tank just likes to snap - as evidenced since I can pull 15Gs in flight but anything above 2Gs on landing breaks it. Of course someone with a better grasp of the game's mechanics might correct me but that's the most obvious solution.

Well, can't say I was surprised that you're electing to be strict! I reflew these mission and hopefully they should be up to par now STS-1b: Done with the new fuel pod - didn't realize the old one was out of date x_x STS-2b: The fuel pod doesn't seem to like landings... but after a few tries I got it settled XD STS-3: This time put in the proper orbit and with upgraded MMUs! And youtube links apparently are broken for me now... sorry. Oh! And in response to your comment on my station - everything is symmetrical with the service module in the middle, and since every module has RCS and SAS it's actually super easy to make maneuvers with I eagerly await the upcoming unconfirmed mission, then <3

This is probably going to be a mess... but in short I decided to bang out STS 1 thru 8 in one sitting with the same craft (as you are no doubt intended to do XD) so apologies in advance for the trouble! I'm no whiz with video editing and my PC struggled to run KSP while recording so I switched to picture proof starting with STS-5. Hopefully I've documented enough of each flight to get credit for all the badges! Here's the list of mods that I've used in these flights - though I've got more installed I guess you'll just have to take my word that I didn't use any of them. Craft file included below: In short I believe I qualify for the Commander Rank for all these missions, but let me know what I need to improve if I don't! STS-1a: Demo Flight STS-1b: Fuel Pod Ascent Note that I forgot to lock the monoprop tank in the fuel pod and a few units were drained, however there was more than enough monoprop on the shuttle itself to top it off, (which I did in the follow-up mission STS-2b) so I still think it counts, right? Final Orbit of the pod in case it wasn't clear is 100.621km x 100.599km, only a 23m deviation STS-2a: Comms Network I know I didn't show me fine tuning the satellite orbits in the video but I included a screenshot of them a few in-game days later once the orbits were properly aligned. STS-2b: Fuel Pod Recovery I topped off the fuel pod (due to circumstances outlined above) and once landed I think I showed rather clearly it was completely full. On landing I blew up an RCS thruster. It's rather loud so just be warned. I didn't realize I also captured other sounds on my computer x_x STS-3: Telescowope Not gonna lie I really struggled with my MMU design so I kinda bent the rules a little and instead of installing the solar panels on the telescope I installed the telescope on the solar panels. I'm sure you understand Oh, and I can't read so I launched it into a 25 degree polar orbit rather than a 25 degree equatorial orbit. Can I still get the Commander Rank? Pretty Please? STS-3 Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/NightshineRecorralis/Commodore-STS-3 STS-4/4R This one had a lot of fun docking in it! It was also the first mission where I was able to recover a booster, but unfortunately the first recording broke and I had to go back and redo the mission - the video is spliced in the middle where I made a quicksave. This mission also demonstrates how overbuilt the Commodore is for Kerbin applications, though why it's so big will be seen in STS-7 and STS-8. This was also the first 'shallow' reentry profile I attempted with this shuttle ad I was impressed that it could hold a 5:1 glide ratio. STS-5: Space Station Hab Module So begins the first of 4 Space Station missions, all of which are documented in pictures and not video as my computer would just stutter and even crash otherwise. Are albums still borked or am I dumb? https://imgur.com/a/6lEhLsN Commodore STS-5: https://kerbalx.com/NightshineRecorralis/Commodore-STS-5 STS-6: Space Station Service Module https://imgur.com/a/hvuRV3C Commodore STS-6: https://kerbalx.com/NightshineRecorralis/Commodore-STS-6 STS-7: Science Module The first Commodore mission with a fully expended main booster, le gasp https://imgur.com/a/ac3w1vr Commodore STS-7/STS-8: https://kerbalx.com/NightshineRecorralis/Commodore-STS-78 STS-8: Science Module 2: Electric Boogaloo https://imgur.com/a/UoKkdAp Here's the completed station:

Test Pilot Review: @espartanlast1's Spartan Industries SRJ-10SP/SRJ-15SP Figures as Tested: SRJ-10SP Price: 40,487,000 from factory; 40,478,000 as tested Fuel: 2300 kallons Cruising speed: 280m/s Cruising altitude: 4000m Fuel burn rate: 0.17kal/s Passengers Carried: 0/0/40 Range: 3400+km Figures as Tested: SRJ-15SP Price: 43,871,000 from factory; 43,862,000 as tested Fuel: 2700 kallons Cruising speed: 280m/s Cruising altitude: 4000m Fuel burn rate: 0.21kal/s Passengers Carried: 0/0/60 Range: 3300+km Review Notes: After a short chat with TKA higher ups we at Habu Industries received a new lineup of passenger jets to review. Today we picked up a new family of small jets from an unknown company: Spartan Industries. They debuted with the SRJ-10SP and SRJ-15SP which we are reviewing today, and we were excited to see what this new competitor could offer. Initial impressions on the ground were mixed between the two variants, with the 10SP looking like a typical T-tailed commuter jet and the 15SP looking oddly long. Apart from that the two aircraft are identical with the 15SP being a simple stretch of the smaller 10SP. They both utilize twin Wheesly turbofans mounted to the rear and a standard tricycle landing gear. Oddly enough, both also were shipped to us with monopropellant still present. Ground handling of both jets were subpar for their size, with both having a turn radius more akin to a much larger airliner. With the baggage hold down low to the ground it’s nice to see something made for regional airports that may not have facilities larger airports do. We only wished that the aircraft would turn better, as that would make them more suited for smaller airports. Our pilots were intrigued by the advertised “short field performance upgrade,” which appeared to be flaps along the leading edge of the wing, and wanted to see how they would perform in upcoming tests. The narrow main gear did provoke some concern about crosswind landings and other less than ideal ground conditions, but this would also have to be tested in flight. Takeoff on both aircraft were fairly straightforward. The 10SP was able to lift off at 60m/s with an impressively short length of less than 500m, while the 15SP relatively chugged, taking off at 72m/s with a longer runway length of approximately 800m required. In both cases we found the extra flaps to be very useful, but were puzzled by Spartan Industries’ decision to have them simultaneously bound to both an action group and the main controls. In fact, none of the control surfaces had been configured, resulting an a very wild ride on the first flight as the roll control overpowered everything else on the plane. Our pilots and engineers agreed that this is something that must be fixed in production aircraft. In terms of actual performance, the 10SP flies well once the controls were tuned. It has a good climb rate on initial ascent, plenty of control surfaces in all 3 axes, and overall was an excellent machine in the hands of our pilots regarding various emergency situations. It was able to handle engine-out operations in any situation and water landings were rather simple to execute. There was some concern about how low the baggage hold was to the ground in the event of a rough landing and the narrowness of the gear might lead to wingstrikes in worsened conditions. We believe both of these concerns can be easily addressed, and neither really detract from the overall build of the 10SP. The 15SP was a mixed bag for us. As it’s simply a stretch of the 10SP, performance is understandably and noticeably worse. However, it is bad to the point that the 15SP cannot handle engine-out operations with the same grace the 10SP did, so much so that should anything happen to either engine on takeoff or climb a catastrophic crash is very likely if a diversion is not possible. The 15SP is heavy enough that if cannot maintain altitude on a single engine with high fuel loads, so we’d like to see a fix to address this if at all possible. Pitch control was also more sluggish and the aircraft could not match the 10SP in climb performance, resulting in a much longer duration to reach cruise. Landing performance of both were excellent as they came equipped with strong brakes. Almost too strong, in fact, as the airframe was subjected consistently to 3Gs of force once they were applied. We are worried about how passengers and the aircraft may react to this sort of force, and recommend that the brakes be loosened a touch should this aircraft be placed into service. In flight, passengers should expect what are standard economy conditions and amenities. The proximity of the twin turbofans to the rear of the cabin does mean it is louder behind the wing, but the planes themselves are constructed well in spite of their relative thinness and in no case did we find excessive vibrations present in flight. Both the 10SP and the 15SP are marketed towards long thin routes. Seating 40 and 60 respectively they both possess the ability to fly between any two points on Kerbin, which is a feat for a small airliner. Their high speed subsonic cruise makes them more attractive for longer flights due to the shortened flight time and we’re sure that plenty would like the cheaper ticket pricing these planes allow. We found the 10SP to be capable of flight just over 3400km, a hair under the advertised range, while the 15SP can fly over 3300km, right on target according to the manual. With this amount of range and with speed comparable or faster than larger airliners, we have reason to believe that either would excel at long distance low demand routes. The Verdict: The cost of flying the Spartan Industries SRJs is low. Both come with a low list price and maintenance costs are kept under control with the twin turbofans and simple construction. The only parts that would need regular upkeep are the many control surfaces, a favorable tradeoff for the excellent performance of the aircraft. While these may not become the workhorse of the airline as Spartan Industries may have expected them to, they certainly have carved a niche for themselves, being capable both as a feederliner or in point-to-point service. Provided that the controls are properly tuned, TKA will order 12 10SPs with an option for 12 more to provide service between distant smaller airports that would not be profitable with a larger jet and to act as feeders on our high density routes. We’d like to see fixes implemented on the 15SP before any firm orders.

https://kerbalx.com/NightshineRecorralis/Mini-Relay This was harder than I expected, so I just kept adding boosters until it worked XD Apologies for the abrupt ending and poor audio. Timestamps for various events are in the YT description. I think I pretty much just built a rocket with wings and not really a spaceplane, though

Test Pilot Review: @Bob_Saget54's SAI-480 Gigant Figures as Tested: Price: 750,093,000 configured from the factory; 749,973,000 as tested Fuel: 21,560 kallons Cruising speed: 210m/s Cruising altitude: 5000m Fuel burn rate: 1.135kal/s Passengers Carried: 480/0/0 as tested Range: 3700+km Review Notes: New day, new plane that needs reviewing. This time there was no unveiling ceremony as the plane we were supposed to review was simply to large for any cloth to cover! The SAI-480 Gigant is the largest aircraft we have had the pleasure of reviewing, and going into all the testing we had high hopes for the simplistic double decker behemoth Saget Aerospace Industries brought to us. The Gigant was an interesting blend of sharp angles and sweeping curves, with wings and stabilizers that looked like they were stolen from a high speed bomber and a passenger deck torn out of an oceanliner. Indeed, it even has the struts to go along, emphasizing the mish-mash style. The initial walkaround and quick glance at the pilot’s handbook revealed the nature of the dual nose gear - one of which was meant for steering and the other for… resting on? It was an odd configuration that left our pilots scratching their heads and our engineers snickering. We certainly hoped the rest of the plane wasn’t built as haphazardly. The twin deck structure appeared to be completely standard first class cabins, and despite how long the Gigant was felt rock solid even with everyone piled into both decks and jumping at the same time. Instead of utilizing a wet wing like many other jumbos, the Gigant has gone with a completely centralized fuel tank right below and extending the full length of the lower deck. The staggering fuel capacity is accompanied by six Goliath turbofan engines to give this massive airliner the power and range it’s advertised to have, of which we were eager to verify once we got it out of the hangar. All we had to do beforehand was drain the monopropellant from the cockpit. Did SAI steal this from a space program? Immediately our pilots had something to say during ground testing: There was no point in having two separate nose gear the way SAI designed it. While the larger of the two kept the nose high, apart from that it was not useful in any way, shape, or form. Our pilots unanimously agreed that they would prefer to have a single steerable gear rather than changing between the two constantly. Apart from that, the Gigant handled well on the ground, with a small turn radius relative to its size and plenty of maneuverability that allows it to forgo towing. Pushback on the other hand is still required as this aircraft does not come with thrust reversers… except it does and they have just been glued shut. Certainly disappointing, but given the braking performance we later discovered, was somewhat understandable. With ground testing out of the way the pilots were eager to get this aircraft airborne. Takeoff was uneventful save for some initial pull to either side of the runway. While this would have been difficult to adjust with the larger nose gear it was merely a mild inconvenience with the steering enabled. Our model was able to lift off at under 85m/s, which while higher than we’d like to see, is still reasonable. The long distance required for takeoff relegates the Gigant to medium and large airports, but given its capacity and cabin layout that was to be expected regardless. We found the tail gear to be necessary in the prevention of tail strikes, a nice addition to have. In the air the aircraft was slow and steady, much like the oceanliner alluded to earlier. Roll and yaw control were adequate, and there was plenty of pitch authority to be had. The latter is probably there to combat the torque induced by the thrust of the low slung engines, but it was a welcome addition nonetheless. We completed both a standard landing and a water landing without any issues. The outboard gear and pods helped in both regards, adding stability in either situation. Not only are they effective at preventing engine strikes, they also make the aircraft very stable on the water. While this aircraft does not have thrust reversers, they are likely unnecessary in the vast majority of situations given the impressively powerful brakes. Safety is paramount for any high capacity, high value aircraft and the Gigant does not disappoint in this regard. Not only can it sustain flight with an entire side’s worth of engines out, it is still stable down to a single outboard engine, though do not expect to maintain airspeed or altitude with more than half the engines gone. Throughout flight testing our pilots could find little to complain about. The only matter that they repeatedly talked about was the lack of incidence on the wings, forcing the aircraft to adopt a rather significant nose-up attitude during cruise. That and the lack of dihedral on the wings meant that while stability was good, it could be better. Not that passengers would notice. The plush first class cabins are in excellent taste and supreme in comfort, though it does get somewhat noisy in the lower front cabin due to its proximity to the inboard engines. The forward and aft bulkheads provide plenty of room for drinks and meals, a nice touch given the sky-high price of the Gigant. The Verdict: In terms of performance, the Gigant performs well enough. With a usable range of 3700km at a decent airspeed passengers are sure to arrive at their destinations refreshed and happy. However, this aircraft was clearly intended for luxury, and it has a price tag to match. At over 750 million funds and carrying 480 passengers in an all first class configuration, we’re having trouble envisioning any standard route that can take advantage of such a cabin layout. While maintenance costs won’t be outlandish with the conventional engine layout and relative simplicity of the aircraft, something must be said about the dated philosophy behind the design. With a three or two class layout, we expect this model to excel at high demand transoceanic or transcontinental routes, but the price-tag might not make the Gigant that currently stands financially viable. We’d like to lease a pair as flagships to test their viability within our fleets, or until a better option comes around, but until then, we’re sure we can convince some rich guy somewhere to host a party in the air every now and then.

Habu Industries proudly presents: The Saturn SST https://kerbalx.com/NightshineRecorralis/Saturn Marketing Blah Blah Blah: Habu Industries offers the forefront in SST technology: Want a long haul, mid capacity, high speed transport with STOL characteristics? The Saturn seats 48 business class and 64 economy class and will transport passengers that have a need for speed with unparalleled speed and efficiency anywhere across the world. With enough range to circumnavigate Kerbin, any time-sensitive route can be conquered with speed and comfort. The Saturn is the successor to the critically acclaimed Jupiter, now with improved comfort and engine placement! Perfect for getting to your destination swiftly and with style, the Saturn is 50%* safer than its predecessor in engine failure situations and on average has 30%** less perceived noise in the main cabin. This is the ultimate long-thin airliner, and all this can be yours for the low low price of 107,642,000! Pilot notes and flight characteristics: Cruise: 21km @ 1200m/s Fuel consumption: <0.64 kal/s in supercruise Range: 4000km+ Hold brakes until rolling at 1m/s and rotate at 65m/s - takeoff roll should only take up to 600m in ideal situations. Retract body flaps as soon as is convenient on takeoff and extend them when landing to increase lift and slow down faster. Landing should take place around 55m/s with AoA of 0 degrees. Climb to altitude holding 20 degree pitch - start levelling off before 17km or you will likely overshoot. If you reach cruise with less than 2500 units of fuel left you did a poor ascent. Git gud. Pitch and yaw sensitivity should not have to be altered. Change roll values to suit your flying but this thing does not need much roll control. SSTs can be hard to fly, so reach out if you need help! *made up number **very made up number

Test Pilot Review: @Servo’s Skytrain LA-600 (Top: LA-600 overflying the KSC; Bottom: LA-600 cruising at altitude) Figures as Tested: Price: 179,833,000 Fuel: 16,420 kallons Cruising speed: 260m/s Cruising altitude: 4000m Fuel burn rate: 0.975 kal/s @ 260m/s; 0.84 kal/s @ 230m/s Passengers Carried: 156 Range: 4000km+ Review Notes: What’s this? A new jet waiting to be taken up for a spin? Habu Industries engineers were pretty excited to see how our shiny new toy would handle, but coming from supersonic and hypersonic transports, they warned the pilots to keep their expectations low. Initial impressions of the LA-600 were positive overall. The attention to detail from a new manufacturer was very nice, though it seems that their marketing team and the engineers on the floor didn’t quite get everything proofread. Unless this is a yet to be released variant, we can confidently say that no, the LA-600 does not seat 164 as advertised, but rather a total of 156 - 140 in the 35 economy cabins and 16 in the two business class cabins right behind the cockpit… or what appeared to be one. Our pilots were understandably disappointed when they realized that the aircraft did not have room for them, but their soured mood disappeared once they were allowed to play with the remote controls. The LA-600 is outfitted with a simple tricycle landing gear configuration with a slight nose-down attitude on the ground. The complex wings and vertical stabilizer structures are juxtaposed with a simple horizontal stabilizer design and curious choices for the winglets. An extensive flap system adorns the trailing edge of the wing, but we were disappointed to see a lack of slats to accompany them given the amount of effort put into the design. A motley of nice-to-haves are present on this aircraft, such as flap supports and landing lights, as well as a cavernous cargo hold beneath the floor of the main deck. The design is pleasing and simple, almost too simple, but we can’t dock points for that. Comfort on paper should be average, according to the aforementioned cabin layout, however the LA-600 adopts an odd strategy of cramming seats in at an odd angle, and what would be an excellent business class cabin placement is marred by the intrusion of multiple economy cabins. For the brave souls who did volunteer to hop aboard for the test flights they found that, apart from the cramped economy seats and less than average business class seat pitch, the aircraft itself was pleasant to ride in. The low slung engine mounted to an already low wing meant that the distance between the twin Goliath turbofan engines and the main cabin is quite large and sounds are tolerable. The LA-600 left a positive impression on our passengers, but what about the pilots? We must question the use of remote control or other unmanned technology on a passenger aircraft, but unfortunately we cannot test how effective the implementation is on this particular model. Our pilots who took command of the LA-600 found it to be a well-behaved airliner, once the supplied manual was thrown out the window and thoroughly demolished in a garbage fire. The instruction for flying this aircraft are in poor taste, and the first test flight nearly ended in disaster as the LA-600 overran the runway on takeoff and nearly went down in the drink had full throttle not been applied. Later simulations revealed that takeoff should not be attempted at lower power and that the flaps were more of a hindrance than a help in nearly all situations given that it reduces pitch control drastically. Following the instructions given we determined that the minimum unstick speed was 83m/s, much higher than the 70m/s listed. Once we allowed our pilots to use their own judgement, ignoring the flaps and applying full power during takeoff roll, the aircraft leapt into the air at 70m/s while only using 600m of runway, a pleasant surprise and frankly astounding performance. Our pilots also questioned the manual’s description of climb. They found that limiting the climb angle to 15 degrees presented a far smaller risk of stalling and loss of control should an engine-out event occur during this phase of the flight. With all systems operational the LA-600 is expected to reach cruise at under 5 minutes after takeoff. Most of that time was spent letting the aircraft get up to speed, and both pilots and engineers agreed that it was uncomfortable for them to redline the turbofans for the majority of the flight at the suggested 260m/s cruising speed. The given range estimate was quite accurate, if slightly low. The LA-600 overdelivered at a maximum usable range of 4100km thanks to its large amount of fuel. In fact, we discovered that the fuel tanks in the wings appeared to utilize some kind of dark magic not yet understood by modern physics, as they each contained approximately twice as much fuel as previously thought possible. At least that means stop-overs should be a thing of the past. Landing the LA-600 was a breeze… for the most part. In a typical landing scenario our pilots found nothing to complain about, but only wished that spoilers and thrust reversers were a standard feature on all large jets. This is made even worse by the fact that thrust reversers come standard on these engines, but have simply been disabled. Similarly, emergency landings are quite standard, provided you can extend the landing gear. Through our advanced simulation in “Human Space Program” we discovered that any strike to the engines would lead to a catastrophic hull-loss, which is a massive risk as they are mounted low to the ground. Water ditchings were satisfactory but could use improvement as pitch control was almost nonexistent at speeds low enough to conduct a safe water landing. Our pilots determined that even with the fuel tanks nearly drained the minimum safe ditching speed was 75m/s. This is dangerously high to the point that a misjudged water landing will result in a hull-loss. Our pilots were also surprised to find 4 thrust levers on their consoles as outwardly the aircraft only appeared to have 2. Through careful disassembly of the starboard engine the engineers were left with enough parts for two engines, and couldn’t put it back together in the place of one. We think there’s more spooky magic at play here. Thankfully this did only take place once all our other testing had already transpired. This aircraft is very complex - at over 300 parts to be serviced, we would expect this aircraft to put a dent in any airline’s wallet. The physics defying engines and fuel tanks will need complete replacement rather than simple maintenance should anything go wrong, and the highly complicated wing and stabilizers are needlessly complex for their purpose. While this thing may be a looker, it certainly isn’t optimal to actual fly. We cannot in good faith recommend this aircraft to any prospective airlines, not for its list price of 179,833,000 since it’s difficult to service, inefficient, and simply does not command a price premium considering the passenger comfort. Should an upcoming revision fix these issues then we’d be glad to take a look at the improvements. However, for the time being, the LA-600 is more suited for a museum than an active fleet.

Huh, this is back Think I might dabble in writing reviews again. Should be fun. @HolidayTheLeek I've send you a request, btw

I've given the topic some further thought, and here's my latest idea: Instead of having submission open constantly, we could establish a system where contestants would be allowed to submit their entries to a certain round. These rounds would last a predesignated time, say, on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, and reflect a specific need of KEA. For instance, we as the judges could designate an open order for a long thin airliner, with certain characteristics that are desirable and certain ones that are turn offs. We'd set a budget and open submissions for a week, then close and judge them on an ongoing basis while submissions open for the next round, etc. This would limit entries flooding the challenge and also (I think) discourage poorly thought out designs. I believe this will make the process much more manageable and easier for the judges. I also think the judging system can be made better - in the last challenge, despite our best efforts, there was still no single standardized method between all of the judges. If I were to reboot the challenge, I would split up various characteristics to be tested by each judge rather than sending an entire submission to be judged by a single judge. As long as each characteristic was consistently judged by the same person for a given round, it would practically eliminate any biases or just oddities from any judge. I think this should be based off of personal preference but if need be a randomizer could be used. For instance, I could judge an airliner's cruise and flight characteristics, while stardust judged take-off and landing performance, panzer the construction and efficiency, and so on and so forth. With this method each judge would score their particular category out of a given maximum, which would then be used to calculate the aircraft's overall score. I believe that having a new spreadsheet per round would make the process much better (or at least a new page on a cumulative spreadsheet, perhaps). We had a pretty solid thing going in the previous challenge, and we ought to continue the use of a judging spreadsheet. Whether that be for consistent calculations or just as a repository, I don't know. Thoughts?

I personally loved trying to figure out new ways to tackle the same problem given the same parts - also why that ended in the jumbo race, imo, since neistridlar's ultra budget stuff blew everything else out of the water XD

See that just sounds like pilot assistant - I highly recommend you download and try it out! It will automagically fly the plane at the designated pitch, yaw, and roll, or any speed and altitude combination. If the plane can do it, PA will fly it. It will constantly adjust along the course of the flight as well, which, in conjunction with hyper edit, allows me to simulate cruise at any fuel level. That was where the time savings came in Just like the SST mission challenges, we could have separate leaderboards and judge panels for the basics and the modded, depending on how big the scale gets on this challenge.

Using kOS would alienate a bunch of players who don't want to spend time optimizing a script for their crafts, though, imo I'm certainly one of those people, which is why ease of flying should be a factor. If it takes 5 minutes for me to get used to a plane versus 30 minutes it does say a lot about the craft

I was using pilot assistant and between that and hand flying the difference was so minimal I fully switched over and saved maybe 50 or 60% of the time needed to judge a plane

You might as well create a custom map of kerbin that has cities and towns on it with airports waiting to be serviced, and an algorithm determining demand from one to another. If you do decide this is something necessary for the challenge it would make a ton of sense

I also think the limits play well with time progression, as it is unlikely for a new company to immediately jump into building large airliners (except Airbus, apparently, but that's not a fair comparison), and so I think not only should part counts be limited by the RnD cost but also what parts to be used. Say for instance new companies are limited to low cost, low budget parts in the beginning and then would have to progress to newer, better parts. I think that will introduce a handicap enough so that the 'market' does not get flooded. I think it will also encourage the development of variants and promote a more realistic progression and evolution in a company's lineup of airliners. For categories, here are my thoughts: Light aircraft - just in case someone thinks a 2 or 4 seater is worthwhile - Skyhawks and such Feederliners - this would include both helis and small aircraft that fill the role of feeding into regional airports from airfields and/or small airports to larger ones. No jet engines in this category - think of King Airs and 1900Ds as real life counterparts, 10-20 seaters? Regional Aircraft - These would fill the role of flying between destinations w/o much demand or need fast turnarounds - analogous to CRJs, ERJs, Dash 8s, etc, these may conflict with small jets even though they have different niches. 40-120 seats Jet Aircraft - you know and love these, and I'm not sure on how to categorize them, probably just small and large, or Narrowbody and widebody, maybe? With long haul and short haul classes in each? Now the demand and design of each category will likely be influenced by other factors should they come into play. That will probably require a deeper dive into the simulation side of things - how much demand is there between cities, fuel prices, maintenance costs, cost to buy vs lease, company reputation, and more, but this is just a generalized overview.

@CrazyJebGuy I think with the advent of dlc and new parts the rules would have to be amended, the details of course will have to come later as clearly in the last few versions the Mk1 cabin provided a distinct advantage. With any changes the old planes would likely not perform well under new rules and such ought to be kept separate, so that's totally fair. In terms of a proper simulation, I think there needs to be a balance between playability and realism. Obviously there are some of us who would absolutely love a true to life simulation regarding business management and such, but perhaps that could be a spin off of the challenge? Having a separate thread and challenge entirely would help prevent stagnation should either one begin to lose interest from the community. In that instance the same companies would be ported over, and whatever simulation requirements can be set, but for this challenge I think the goal has always been to design commercial aircraft and design commercial aircraft only. Introducing management may be appealing to some but I think would add stupid amounts of complexity to a challenge that was already plagued by complexity issues. On the topic of the simulation, there needs to be a lot more transparency than "I'll go and let things play out" but I do like it - I think it attracts a wholly different class of players who don't want to design their own craft but wish to play as an airline - maybe that could be the basis of an actual management challenge? Use only the crafts supplied from the KEA challenge and their respective companies to develop a successful airline. Though time progression may throw a wrench in that (again, complexity vs playability) I think I would personally just stick to the building challenge, as having to deal with time progression and development is not something I'm most fond of, though it would provide an additional challenge for the building of aircraft if there were limits on parts and such until the company has achieved a certain level of prestige or something else, kind of like how the STS mission challenges progress. Just some surface level thoughts